Redundant words slow readers down and obscure key information. In technical and legal texts, redundancies can creep in owing to literal translations from other languages or a desire to sound more formal. However, unnecessary words rarely add clarity. Instead, they dilute meaning and lengthen sentences.
This post focuses on two types of redundancy that can hamper legal and technical documents:
- Lexical redundancy: unnecessary words within a sentence
- Structural redundancy: unnecessary words added for signposting
Fixing these issues usually involves removing the redundant term. The challenge is spotting them.
Table of Contents
Lexical redundancy
Lexical redundancy arises when a word repeats information contained elsewhere in the sentence.
A good test is to remove the questionable word and see if the sentence conveys the same meaning. If it does, the word is likely redundant.
Examples
✘ As already set out above, …
✔ As set out above, …
“already” does not add new information. “set out above” inherently implies that it has been stated previously in the text.
✘ The main request contains further independent claims directed to a corresponding method and a corresponding program…
✔ The main request contains further independent claims directed to a method and a program …
Since the claims obviously refer to the same invention, “corresponding” does not add clarity. If anything, it obscures meaning by leaving the reader wondering what “corresponding” refers to.
✘ … will depend on the specific circumstances of the case.
✔ … will depend on the circumstances of the case.”
In most contexts, “circumstances” already suggests specificity.
✘ … concerns matters related to obviousness …
✔ … concerns obviousness …
“matters related to” is implied.
Structural redundancy
Structural redundancy refers to unnecessary signposting in the form of words that aim to guide the reader.
In English, especially in concise writing, signposting is used sparingly. If a sentence follows naturally from the previous one, words like “furthermore”, “in this regard” and “in particular” may be superfluous. In other cases, connectors such as “notably” and “it should be noted” are fluff that adds nothing.
Signpost terms are not always redundant. Sometimes you need a transition to signal contrast (“however”) or addition (“moreover”). But using them to introduce every new point can weigh a text down.
Examples
✘ It has to be noted that decision G 1/21 was taken after …
✔ Decision G 1/21 was taken after …
“it has to be noted” is redundant as you are already saying it should be noted just by noting it.
✘ Notably, the skilled person knows that there are only two options …
✔ The skilled person knows that there are only two options …
Again, “notably” is redundant as making the statement implies the noteworthiness.
✘ … the claimed solution would have been arbitrary and obvious. In particular, it would have been obvious to the skilled person that an increase of the content of …
✔ … the claimed solution would have been arbitrary and obvious. It would have been obvious to the skilled person that an increase of the content of …
Here, the second sentence naturally provides the details that justify the assertions of the first sentence. There is no need to signpost that an explanation is coming with “in particular”.
✘ Furthermore, given that the appellant had objected specifically to inventive step …
✔ Given that the appellant had objected specifically to inventive step …
If the above sentence opens a paragraph, there is no need to signal a new point is coming with “furthermore”. That is obvious from the fact it is a new paragraph. Even within a paragraph a signpost probably won’t be necessary.
While terms like “furthermore” are common in legal and technical texts, you don’t want to overuse them. They become tiring to read if every second sentence starts with one. So edit out all those you can.
The trick: identifying redundancy
To decide if a word is redundant, ask the following questions:
- Does another word in the sentence express this idea?
- Is the implication obvious without the word?
- Does the transition or signpost help the reader understand a shift in argument, or is it just filler?
If your answer to any of these shows that a term adds no new information or clarity, consider cutting it.
Conclusion
Redundancy—lexical or structural—slows the reader down. It clutters otherwise clear writing.
By removing unnecessary words, you streamline the text. This makes it easier for the reader to grasp key points.
While some redundancy may serve an emphatic or structural purpose, most can be cut. Knowing when to do so is a matter of practice, attention to context and a willingness to question each word’s value.
Key takeaway: If a word or phrase does not strengthen meaning or clarity, cut it.
